The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for the ‘Republican Brand’ Category

When libs (or libertarians) strike, here is a concise economic argument for the GOP program.

Posted by iusbvision on June 9, 2011

The title as well as some of the commentary below is from Dr. Robert Schneider. 

Schneider has been an important figure in American foreign policy and global security during the Reagan and Bush 41 years. Dr. Schneider and myself enjoyed a great conversation about the following article with another CEO/economist from out West. [I have not yet obtained permission to name the Western CEO as of yet but he is described as having an “Obscene IQ” as I am confident his clients will attest to.] 

Normally I do not share such conversations, but this one is such a valuable exploration of current public policy I made an exception. Keep in mind that what you are about to read is a conversation that is completely spontaneous. What you are about to read is an intellectual feast. Enjoy!

*******

Dr. Schneider: I find most the folks on here trying to use “logic” to make arguments, without understanding the fundamental principles underpinning the Ryan plan.  The dems argue we have to have stimulation (not Anthony Weiner’s type) to get the economy going again.  Here is the argument which the other side can’t counter. Of course, the Ronulans wouldn’t know an economic argument from a sack of worms, but it might be fun to watch their heads explode as you lay this article on them.   It is the knockout punch.

For our arguments to win the day against liberals, and others who may think it’s ok to bash Ryan, these arguments are key to getting us back to a prosperous nation, and out of our economic gloom.

 

Ugly Modeling: Will spending cuts ruin or improve America’s economy?
By Veronique de Rugy

From Reason Magazine

In February, the Goldman Sachs economist Alec Phillips predicted on ABCNews.com that a Republican proposal in the House of Representatives to cut $61 billion from the federal budget in fiscal year 2011, would, if enacted, shave two full percentage points off America’s gross domestic product in the second and third quarters of this year. A few days later, The Washington Post described a new study by Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics and an architect of the 2009 stimulus package, a.k.a. the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Zandi’s amazing verdict: The spending cuts would destroy 700,000 jobs by the end of 2012.

After every newspaper had published the gloomy predictions, Goldman Sachs issued a “clarification” of Phillips’ analysis. Phillips now says he was misunderstood by journalists eager to spread a doom-and-gloom message and predicts the impact of spending cuts probably will be mild and temporary. Perhaps he was influenced by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who testified in March at the Senate Banking and Urban Affairs Committee that Goldman’s numbers were incorrect.

Yet even this correction implicitly assumes that government spending is the source of all recovery. The logic, as with Bernanke’s and Zandi’s analyses, is that government spending cuts reduce overall demand in the economy, which affects growth and then employment. This argument ignores the fact that the government has to take its money out of the economy by raising taxes, borrowing from investors, or printing dollars. Each of these options can shrink the economy.

All these analysts also systematically ignore the fact that GDP numbers include government spending. When the federal government pumps trillions of dollars into the economy, it looks as if GDP is growing. When government cuts spending—even cuts within the most inefficient programs—aggregate GDP shrinks.

But that’s misleading. If Washington spends $1 a year on a bureaucrat’s salary, for example, GDP numbers will register growth of exactly $1, whether or not the employee has produced any value for that money. By contrast, if a firm pays an engineer $1, that $1 only shows up in the GDP if the engineer produces $1 worth of stuff to sell. This distinction biases GDP numbers—and the policies based on them—toward ever-increasing government spending.

Furthermore, GDP does not capture changes in personal investment portfolios or changes in private research and development spending. In the last two years, corporate cuts in the latter area have been large but unaccounted for. Also not included in GDP: pension benefits and the U.S. Flow of Funds Accounts balance-sheet information from the Federal Reserve Board. That means that when it comes to GDP, states’ grossly underfunded pensions are off the books, along with the loans and purchases conducted under TARP.

Another problem with these analyses: Economists of all persuasions have proven to be really bad at predicting the future, especially when it comes to jobs. Take the stimulus. Forecasters at the White House and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted the stimulus package would create more than 3 million jobs. And in August 2010, the CBO estimated that the stimulus had indeed created between 1.4 million and 3.6 million extra jobs, thrilling supporters of economic intervention. But unemployment stubbornly remained around 10 percent.

What was wrong with the CBO’s numbers? “When the upper limit of your estimate is almost three times the lower limit, you know it is not a very precise estimate,” the George Mason University economist Russ Roberts pointed out in testimony to the House Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight, and Government Spending in February.

The truth is that there is no way to know the real number of jobs “created or saved” by the stimulus. For that, the CBO would have had to collect data on output and employment while holding other factors constant. But the CBO didn’t do that because that’s different from its job of “scoring” the possible results of proposed legislation. As the CBO explained in a November 2009 report, “Isolating the effects would require knowing what path the economy would have taken in the absence of the law. Because that path cannot be observed, the new data add only limited information about [the law’s] impact.” In other words, CBO number crunchers gave it their best guess before the stimulus and arrived at their subsequent numbers by applying their original prediction model. If the model is wrong, so are the numbers.

No one knows what economic output would have been without the stimulus, and no models can tell us the answer. As Roberts testified, “The economy is too complex. Too many other variables change at the same time.”

Also, the Zandi and Phillips models are based on the Keynesian view that government spending produces recovery. According to that theory, $1 in government spending produces substantially more than $1 in growth, a phenomenon known as the “multiplier effect.” The Goldman Sachs study assumes a multiplier greater than three—i.e., more than $3 in additional GDP for each dollar of government spending. But a review of the empirical literature reveals that in most cases a dollar in government spending produces less than a dollar in economic growth. And these findings often don’t even take into account the impact of paying for that government dollar via increased taxes.

The Harvard economists Robert Barro and Charles Redlick estimate that the multiplier for stimulus spending is between 0.4 and 0.7. In another study, the Stanford economists John Taylor and John Cogan concluded that the stimulus package couldn’t have had a multiplier much greater than zero. Even the multipliers used by Christina Romer, the former chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, economic adviser to Vice President Joseph Biden, in their January 2009 paper “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,” ranged from 1.05 to 1.55 for the output effect of government purchases. More recently, the Dartmouth economists James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote, who supported the stimulus, acknowledged that it didn’t boost the economy nearly as much as the administration models claimed it would.

The use of these outdated models and unrealistic multipliers explains why Zandi was wrong about how many jobs the stimulus would create. He claimed “the country will have 4 million more jobs by the end of 2010” if the stimulus passed. In truth, by the end of 2010 total payroll jobs had fallen by 3.3 million, and the unemployment rate had risen from 7.8 percent to 9.4 percent. The administration’s post-facto claim is that unemployment would have risen even more without the stimulus. To argue this, they again must pretend that they know what would have happened in the absence of a stimulus.

Now what? Many economists and many members of the business community argue that recent policy changes have hampered investment, making a bad situation worse. The prospect of endless future deficits and accumulating debt raises the threats of increased taxes and of government borrowing crowding out capital markets, diverting resources that could be used more productively. As a result, U.S. companies are less likely to build new plants, conduct research, and hire people.

We have tried spending a lot of money to jump-start the economy, and it has failed. Now we need to cut spending and lift the uncertainty paralyzing economic activity. That approach will not just be more fiscally responsible. It will also empower individuals and entrepreneurs. And they are the only ones who can bring on a real recovery.

Ms. de Rugy (vderugy@gmu.edu), a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, writes a monthly economics column for reason.

 

 

IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton: This article above is a VERY good argument, but even so I would add just a couple of minor points (and thoughts).

The Keynesian GDP formula also assumes that government spending is better than consumer or even capital investment spending because people in the private economy will save some of their money and not spend it. Keynes calls this “leakage”.

This concept almost completely ignores the fact that savings have a positive impact on the economy in several ways. If you save the money in a CD the banks have more depositors’ money that can be used for loans and it helps to ease the credit market. Money saved in the form of bonds or stocks or other investing has obvious positive effects that are not measured PROPERLY in the Keynes GDP formula as it is only a dollar per GDP measurement and investment dollars for production have a much larger impact – this is literally where the creation of wealth comes from.

The other impact that savings have in an economy is psychological. Are you more likely to buy a car, or a durable good, or take a risk with an investment if you have more savings? The impact of “confidence” on the economy is difficult to overstate.

The economist Art Okun describes what he called “Okun’s Leaky Bucket” when it comes to government spending. When government spends or redistributes wealth, some of the money just goes poof. It is more than the decreasing incentive for the productive to work when they are punished or the money that is eaten up by the bureaucracy; government spending is just less efficient period for a number of reasons, so the Keynesian dollar per GDP formula critiqued in Bob’s posted article is even worse than the article explains.

When you (or a business) use a dollar it is spent on the greatest need or want. In the macro this results in great efficiency because dollars are going where they are needed/wanted the most. Government spends money for political reasons, corruption, and “make work” central planning. Those dollars are not spent to “produce with maximum efficiency and impact”, they are spent in the hopes that some of it returns in the form of campaign contributions.

When money is used for production to actually make things, especially capital goods, the velocity of those dollars expands greatly, and while it is doing the maximum good in creating wealth, those dollars are taxed more times as they move through various hands and government revenue increases. It is a win/win.

The Keynesian GDP formula assumes that government spending is equal to or better than capital investment spending and such a notion is laughable on its face.

Assume for a moment that we have an economy of 1000 men making widgets. Just to pick a round number lets say they have a GDP of 1000 units. The GDP is equal to the combined productive output within nation’s borders in a year. Enter “The Bernanke” who prints up 100 units and enter “The Pelosi” who spends those 100 units. Congratulations! Now on paper your production just went up to 1100 units of GDP. See how much MORE productive we are!

In reality you still just have 1000 widgets. The increase in GDP is a fantasy. A new GDP formula is needed.

 

 

Western CEO/Economist: 100% of the time government stimulus has failed to truly stimulate. Sure, buying a ton of office supplies helps out International Paper, Staples, etc. however it is a $1 gov spends does NOT turn into a $1 in taxation, usually less than 20%.

However, that same $1 in the private sector the velocity of money is accelerated. Also, it is not money spent by government that it has, it must borrow it and that is in essence $2 dollars. Dollar spent and dollar borrowed.

Art Laffer, Milton Friedman, etc have proved that reduced tax rates has a much better stimulative effect on real GDP than any other single measure and it is a LASTING measure. Bush tax cuts took us IMMEDIATELY out of the Clinton (fairly cyclical) recession.

Another thought: the way to have REAL GDP growth is in building: Homes, offices, cars, ships, etc. Without real construction growth (not possible with frozen credit markets) you cannot have sustained GDP growth. Money Supply is growing at 12% or higher with GDP at maybe 1.5%. That is financial suicide.

I am NOT afraid of the border, Al Qaeda, etc, I AM afraid of this massive debt.

Chuck Norton is dead on. Fellow economist? Keynes was uber bright for the TIMES. HE is dated, just like the Austrian boys Hayek and von Mises, both uber bright but not for a truly global world.

 

 

Dr. Schneider: V= nQ/M some things you just never forget.

 

 

CEO/economist: Most econ theory is just that, theory. Milton taught us to THINK. Free markets ALWAYS chose the right winner. It is when gov makes winners and losers that the tax payer pays and pays…….

Phil Donahue interview of Milton Friedman:

Donahue: When you see around the globe the mal distribution of wealth the desperate plight of millions of people around the world in under developed countries. When you so few haves and so many have not’s when you see the greed and the concentration of power. Did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed is a good idea to run on?

Milton: Well first of all, tell me is there some society that you know of that doesn’t run on greed? Do you think Russia doesn’t run on greed? Do you think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy; it is always the other fellow that is greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus! Einstein did not construct his under order from a government bureaucrat! Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty that you are talking about, the only cases in recorded history, is where they have had capitalism and largely free trade! If you want to know where the masses are worse off is in the exact society’s that depart from that [sic] free trade and capitalism. So that the record of history is absolutely clear that there is NO alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free enterprise system.

Donahue: But it seems to reward not virtue as much as the ability to manipulate the system.

Milton: And what does reward virtue? Do you think that the communist commissar rewards virtue? Do you think a Hitler rewards virtue. Pardon me, but do you think American Presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? I think that you are taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world do you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?….

 

 

Dr. Schneider: Markets are smarter than people.

 

 

Chuck Norton: I have to tell you guys this funny story in light of Bob’s last comment “Markets are smarter than people”.

I got into an argument with a Marxist prof who was all about central planning and not leaving people’s livelihoods to chance (the market) and insisted that a more rational top down approach was safer and fairer.

So I said to the prof, OK, let’s make a society of 10 million people and you can pick the ten smartest people through all of recent history to plan this economy. Assume that you are in a place with adequate resources to serve the population reasonably. Please pick your 10.

She picked her ten. They were all men with names many would know. I answered, OK now tell me which one of these men will be the central planner in charge of tampons and maxi pads (Laughter). [Markets are smarter than central planners with good intentions, or bad ones – Editor]

 

 

Advertisements

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Economics 101, Republican Brand, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

Palin Bashers in the GOP Should Think Twice

Posted by iusbvision on June 9, 2011

By IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton

There is nothing wrong with expressing concerns about a candidate. We should ask tough questions and expect good answers.

It does not take long to notice that those in the GOP who “Palin bash” go out of the way to avoid discussing her record. They have been caught up in the elite media narrative and have not done their homework. To be frank, Republicans should not be so foolish to Palin bash for the sake of bashing as it can have serious consequences.

The first problems is obvious. If Republicans buy into baseless and mindless elite media spin they might as well just ask NBC to pick the nominee for them.

Related to that problem is that the elite media went all out to try and destroy a GOP nominee. They took every allegation from her political opponents and reported them as if they were facts and in most cases would not offer retractions when such stories were proved wrong. They accused her of faking a pregnancy, accused her of being a book banner, accused her of trying to deny sexual assault victims rape kits, accused her of ravaging programs to help teen mothers, and even accused her of being an accomplice to the murderous shooting by Jarred Loughner and continued that narrative even after it came out that he was a dedicated Bush hater who had gone schizophrenic. The aforementioned is just a sampling of the lies the elite media has willingly propagated. The idea of Republicans standing by and doing nothing about this doesn’t sit well with me.

You can be sure if a shooting incident happens closer to election time, the commercials and “rhetoric” from the nominee will be blamed for it by the Democrats and their friends in the elite media.

You can also be sure, it will not matter who the GOP nominee is, be it if Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann, the elite media will accuse him/her of some kind of sexual misconduct. The New York Times baselessly accused Senator McCain of having an affair with a 40 year old lobbyist the day after he secured the primary.

Recently I had a conversation with some Palin bashers and in every case not a one of them was familiar with her actual governing record.

Palin Bashing Republican #1:

No, we don’t like her because she doesn’t have the leadership qualities to be president.

You might enjoy how I handled this “objection”:

I Agree, everything Sarah has touched has been a disaster. Here are some examples:

She cut the state budget by 9.8% while maintaining state services. Heck, name me one GOP governor who didn’t accomplish the same and cut the budget by at least 13%.

She cut the governors personal expenses by 80% over the previous Republican governor, who cares if she had three young kids to cart around.

She implemented a plan to begin weaning the state off federal “earmarks” and cut the number of earmark requests three years in a row. No one cares about that, after all earmarks are only less than 1% of the federal budget.

Cut Alaska’s Medicaid backlog by 83%. There are no long wait lists or backlogs in Massachusetts… oh wait…

Sarah was terrible for the Alaska GOP machine. When she rooted out the corruption of bought off Republicans in state government and sent many bad actors packing lots of party people were even fined. That is no way to lead a machine /nods.

She was able to pass sweeping ethics reforms and reform a state contract bidding process that was rigged and controlled by cronies? Doesn’t Sarah understand that when WE own the machine those are OUR cronies? Sheesh!

Sarah is SO behind the times. She had the NERVE to develop a competitive process to construct a gas pipeline [which languished for decades and is the largest state financed infrastructure project in US History]. Doesn’t she understand that “green jobs” are in?

And everyone knows that nothing got done when she:

Chaired the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
Chaired the National Governor’s Association (NGA) Natural Resources Committee.
Chaired the Alaska Conservation Commission.
Presided over the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

Of course her record as mayor is equally pale.

According to Wasilla City documents that are posted on their web server. The propagandists who are obviously her cronies rigged the paperwork to indicate that Sarah oversaw the economic growth of Wasilla by a factor of four as a leader in city government from 1992 to 2003. They have the nerve to claim that while Wasilla’s population increased by 80%, city services were grown at a level to meet the challenge while property and business taxes rates were dropped. They even claimed Wasilla’s tax revenue still increased by nearly 250%. How laughable. Everyone knows that when you lower the tax rate you get less revenue….

Rigged paperwork, crony government, constant under performance. That’s Sarah Palin!

As you would expect, this completely shut the GOP Palin basher #1 down. She had no response.

GOP Palin Basher #2:

Chuck- I think if Sarah Palin had stayed on as governor instead of becoming more of a “celebrity” she would have retained the support of conservative women. This is where I think she went wrong. And I don’t think that women hate her because of her looks (jealousy), most conservative women I know believe in being/staying attractive. You are right , she has an excellent record- just wish she stayed on that path.

Again I went back to the facts:

[Editor’s Note – A legal loophole in Alaska Law allows anyone to file a lawsuit or phony “ethics complaint”, each requires an investigation and a ruling – the Governor must pay their own legal bills to fight them. Democrats filed dozens of these bogus lawsuits. Sarah easily won each of them, but it was eating up the Governor’s staff’s time and had put her into half a million dollars in personal debt.]

Palin Basher 2, if Sarah has stayed in office would have been endless bad press as the left continued to file one frivolous lawsuit after another against her using that legal loophole . I find it interesting that those who blast her for “quitting” never have anything to say about why she did it, or have anything bad to say about how sleazy the Democrats were in their behavior. Forgive me for being skeptical when people are far more willing and eager to blast our nominee than Democrats who behaved horribly.

Also, if Sarah had not taken on ObamaCare on her nation wide tour, not taken the slings and arrows for other conservatives, and not gone after Obama constantly to drive up his negatives, the 2009 and 2010 elections win margins would not have been what they were for us, so again if Sarah had taken any other course, Democrats would have been the ones who benefited. Who needs Democrats when “Republicans” are writing their spin and talking points for them?

Said Palin basher had no response. What is there to say? These facts are irrefutable and I am confident they felt embarrassed after being shut down with such authority.

Still, in the same conversation, entered a rather clueless Palin Basher #3:

And now we are rewriting history! Paul Revere warned the BRITISH that the British were comming! For me Intelligence is one of the must have traits to be President.

Palin Basher #3 did not bother to look up the record or the news all over the internet that Palin was correct in her account.

My Response:

NPR’s historian said that Palin was absolutely right about that. So did Prof William Jacobson at Cornell Law School who posted the quote from Paul Revere himself about it. Palin is a voracious reader of the Founders and if you watch her interviews she quotes them at length from memory from time to time. It is all over the net how the Palin bashers are easting crow on that one. So why are we bashing a nominee when we are not doing the homework and getting it wrong? If our “best” are going to believe the elite media narrative and not do any homework we might as well just ask NBC to pick our next nominee.

Another GOP’er claiming to be wise who has not done a lick of homework and had no response. Republicans are not supposed to behave that way and will pay a price as long as they do.

Words of Wisdom

Here is a 25 minute interview with Sarah where Chris Wallace throws every policy question in the book at her, and she answers each one with the proper detail – www.therightscoop.com/full-interview-sarah-palin-on-fox-news-sunday/  so to say that she is unintelligent is not only wrong, but foolish for Republicans in the long run. On at least 70% of the issues all of the potential candidates agree so if Sarah is an idiot and our nominee agree on most issues, what does that say about our nominee? Do you think the left will not take advantage of that? Sarah may decide to run for Senate, what then? Make no mistake, since Sarah Palin is a GOP VP Nominee, smearing her is smearing the Republican Brand.

The simple truth is that Sarah Palin has posted detailed policy positions on almost very issue imaginable. Most of the others do not.

This early in the primary season, it is wide open. ANYTHING could happen and the political landscape can change radically in a single day. Never forget that.

Early in the primary season for Reagan he was in double digit negatives as well. We need to support all of our potential candidates. I will be supporting all of them (except Ron Paul as he goes places I simply cannot follow). Early in his campaign season Ross Perot had double digit positives.

Now is NOT the time to be violating the 11th Commandment. We should express concerns about our candidates, ask tough questions and expect good answers from all of them, but we should not trash them. Anyone who says that X can win and Y cant at this stage in the game is just off their rocker. At this stage before the last election people were like “What is an Obama?” or “Someone with a last name like Obama (Usama) could never get elected”. Well here we are.

Lastly, Sarah Palin keeps score and is very good at political payback as Mitt Romney, Ed Rollins, Chris Christie, and a pile of now former political players in Alaska have found out the hard way. As the Alaska Daily News points out, “The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who crossed Sarah”.

If Sarah Palin becomes our nominee she will control the RNC and perhaps the White House. All of those who smeared her will be on the outs for a long time.

So why has IUSB Vision always been so invested in Sarah Palin?

The simple truth is that we aren’t. The number one goal of this publication and blog, be it under Editor Chamberlain, Brigham, or Norton, has been to introduce people to points of view they will not commonly see on a college campus or in the elite media/Democrat media complex. We believe that the elite media is beyond incompetent and is in fact corrupt.

There is no better or more numerous example of this truth than the elite media coverage of Sarah Palin, which is more wrong than it is right, and in which journalistic ethics is completely abandoned more often. We take interest in correcting the record of the elite media, it is just that in the case of Sarah Palin, more correction is needed.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Craig Chamberlin, Jarrod Brigham, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Republican Brand, True Talking Points | 1 Comment »

AWESOME! Allen West Video Roundup!

Posted by iusbvision on March 2, 2011

Allen West Stem-winder at CPAC!

Allen West on Multiculturalism w/ Greta: 

Allen West: The liberal left is absolutely terrified of me (and its true).

Allen West Defends the Continuing Resolution/Spending Cuts  with Veteran Reporter Judy Woodruff. This is a no miss interview.  

Allen West on “What is the Tea Party?”

Allen West with Small Business Owner on Obamacare: 

Allen West with Eric Stackelbeck:

Allen West to Congress: Go Bold or Go Home!

Allen West on Israel and Militant Islam 

How Allen West Will heal America 

Allen West: When I win this election I am going to walk up to Nancy Pelosi and say ‘Give Me That Damn Gavel!’ 

Allen West: Liberal Progressive Agenda is Antithesis of Who We Are as a Republic – LINK.

Allen West: PC rules of engagement cost lives. The terrorists are doing what the Quran says – LINK.

Allen West on John Lewis – LINK.

AWESOME VIDEO: CAIR Exec. Confronts Allen West. Wow did he pick the wrong guy to try and pull a fast one on.

The elite media fears West. To say he is rhetorically gifted is an understatement. Having seen West in action in person the best way to describe his rhetorical ability is to mix Ronald Reagan and General Patton.

This is not something I say lightly or easily, but it happens to be the truth. West is so brilliant and so gifted that the White House is his for the taking. I have never said that about anyone before.

CAIR’s executive director Nezar Hamze confronts Allen West thinking he can intimidate and use PC pressure tactics, only to get schooled by Allen West on Islam and its history.

UPDATE – Better video of same incident. The fireworks start a 3:10 –  

UPDATE I – How do you fight an enemy that wants to die for Allah? West: You grant him his wish.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Culture War, Post 2010, Republican Brand, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

Kathleen Parker ousted from CNN for the same reason she was hired.

Posted by iusbvision on February 27, 2011

 

I was tossing and turning in my mind if I should write this article or not. It is the same old story with so called “conservatives” who have little intellectual substance who, in an act of desperation for attention, start attacking conservatives of substance with with name calling or unsupported accusations to get “instant stardom” by the leftist elite media; just ask Davids Brooks and Frum who now only have traction within New York City. Ask John McCain who used to say that the elite media was his constituency till he ran against The One. The day after McCain won the primary, the love affair was cut off, the elite media turned on him in unison, the NYT falsely accused him of having an affair and for the first time refused to publish his letters to the paper.

As a former radio talk show host myself if I switched sides and attacked there is little doubt that I would get offers from leftist media and or newspapers to work. It is a story that has happened a dozen times. What a conservative says is not “newsworthy” to the elite media until said conservative attacks a Republican candidate with something “saucy”.

The elite media makes its news decisions based of leftist dogma. Conservatives know that and when they want to cash in they know what to do to get attention. However that success is very limited and such so called “conservatives” cannot draw in a wider audience because they lose credibility with conservatives, traditionalists and independents.  I did not watch the show more than a few times because it was boring and neither of the people on had much substance in their views. Besides who wants to watch a “crossfire”  like show with a liberal Republican sellout and a leftist politician who likes prostitutes? There just isn’t enough substantive conflict to make the show interesting.

Imagine if you will, “CROSSFIRE” with David Frum & Joe Lieberman. They would agree 70% of the time and it would be a snoozer. But at least Joe is an honest man who I can respect.

With that said there is NO chemistry between these two. Let us say the obvious. Parker finds Spitzer revolting because he is. He is dismissive of her and talks over her in a way that is misogynistic and she is trying too hard to be liked by CNN’s small audience.  This does not make for good TV.

I am way behind in my writing anyway so I was going to just blow this off, but then John Ziegler wrote the article I would have written, but included a dimension to it that only he could deliver.

John Ziegler:

But the primary reason why the program couldn’t work is also the very reason Parker got the gig in the first place [Emphasis ours  – IUSB Vision Editor]. She was clearly hired because she was perceived as a “conservative” who was willing to vigorously attack Palin, while not holding any particularly strong conservative opinions which might offend the largely liberal CNN audience. It is hardly a secret that the best (and perhaps only) way for an unknown or career-challenged conservative to achieve mainstream media acceptance is to be a sellout to their supposed cause (just ask Arianna HuffingtonPeggy NoonanDavid BrooksDavid FrumMichael Smerconish, or Joe Scarborough, to name only a few).

Criticizing Palin (along with endorsing Obama) has quickly become the most reliable path to instant notoriety/credibility for ambitious “conservatives,” and Parker became the poster child for this phenomenon. When I went on CNN during my film’s first release, I was actually asked to respond to a Parker quote about Palin. This was especially absurd because Parker had no special knowledge of Palin and was virtually unknown before she “led” Palin’s “assassination.” Had Parker praised Palin, CNN would never have found the quote remotely newsworthy.

However, there is apparently a downside side to getting a show this way. Much like a guy who spends all his cash to get the girl and has nothing left to keep her, Parker had no capital with which to make the show a ratings success. Conservatives, most of whom don’t trust CNN to begin with, had no reason to tune in, and she was such a soft and colorless “conservative” that she didn’t even make for a fun punching bag for the liberal audience, or her overrated co-host (based on my experience Spitzer is actually quite dumb). The sad reality of cable news television today is that you must be polarizing to “succeed.” Moderation or wimpiness simply won’t work, especially when such a temperament is clearly contrived, and not backed up with any real talent.

With no spark, no friction, no talent, and no audience base, Parker brought nothing to the table, and the show was clearly doomed. In the end, she got the fate that she clearly deserved, only probably better.

There is also an interesting secondary element to Parker’s demise which might make media pundits a little more hesitant to attack Sarah Palin. Since the 2008 election, many of her biggest media critics have found themselves out of a job. Keith Olbermann, Rick Sanchez, David Shuster, Alan Colmes, Campbell Brown, John Roberts, Larry King, Harry Smith and Parker are all prominently mentioned in my documentary and all of them have been let go from TV jobs since Obama got elected.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Palin Truth Squad, Republican Brand | Leave a Comment »

Bill Whittle on Palin Haters: It is easier to attack those with integrity when you have none.

Posted by iusbvision on December 21, 2010

This is one of the finest explanations of the propaganda and psychology used by the far left and the elite media as I have ever seen.

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Leftist Hate in Action, Palin Truth Squad, Republican Brand | Leave a Comment »

Gov. Christie to superintendants of failing schools: I am capping your salary to what I make. If you want to qualify for a bonus your students need to show improvement.

Posted by iusbvision on December 7, 2010

If you care about kids or education at all this is a must see.

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Republican Brand | Leave a Comment »

Dr. Glenn Reynolds: The Tea Party past, present & future.

Posted by iusbvision on November 12, 2010

This is a great video. Two local Tea Party founders talked about hwo they infiltrated and took over their local Republican machines, then took over their state machine, then replaced the Speaker of their State House and then replaced a sitting Republican U.S. Senator with their own candidate. It was textbook.  A group of 80-200 people can do this in almost any county. The power belongs to those who show up and they did.

The left and the elite media portrays Tea Party citizens as unsophisticated red-necks and rubes, anyone who sees this video and examines election day results can see that Tea Party normal citizens became effective political movers and shakers in a hurry.

If you are a poli-sci student this video is a must see.

 

 

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Culture War, Republican Brand, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

Taxes & Spending: Specifics on What the GOP Should Do

Posted by iusbvision on November 7, 2010

Welcome Daily Caller readers!

On Taxes:

1 – The massive tax code allows the super rich to hide money so they don’t pay their fair share. The tax code also picks winners and losers and slants the playing field against small and medium-sized domestic businesses.

2 – The cost of compliance with the tax code is in itself a massive tax.

3 – We need a fairer, flatter and simpler tax system that encourages people to create wealth.

4 – Change the tax code so that the rate for small business S-Corps is smaller than the high wage earner rate and not tied to it.

5 – There are not enough “rich” people to sock anyways to handle the deficit.

6 – Lower the corporate income tax but eliminate some loopholes to help attract wealth back from overseas. We have the second highest corporate income tax in the industrialized world. That sends jobs away.

7 – The best way to increase revenue is with lower tax rates that stimulate and attract wealth creation and investment. Creating and inviting more wealth to tax is the best way to increase revenue. When jobs, wealth, investment goes to China, we can’t tax it.

8 – Wealth goes where it is treated well and more and more that isn’t here.

9 – The private sector simply cannot support a government that costs $3 trillion dollars a year and stay competitive.

On Spending & Legislation:

Reform on spending has to come in forms both large and small. Remember that Obama said in the 2008 campaign that he wanted to cut spending from the 2008 levels (and instead it went through the roof).

1 – Cut spending back to 2008 levels immediately (except unemployment).

2 – Earmark abuse must come to an end. Granted legislative earmarks usually add up to less than $20 billion a year, many of these earmarks go to lobbyists clients and are used for paybacks and corruption.

3 – End funding for NPR, Arts and other fluff. Sorry folks we are dangerously in debt now.

4 – For many unionized and other federal employees, their pay is 30-300% higher than their counterparts in the private sector. On top of that many federal employees pay next to nothing for their benefits. This must be reformed. This goes for many of the states as well.

5 – We need means testing for Social Security & Medicare.  We do not need to be paying for Rush Limbaugh’s and Bill Gates’ Medicare.

6 – We need to reign in executive earmark/pork spending like much of the stimulus package and the $411 Billion pork bill that was passed days after.

7 – We need a massive reform in education spending as most of it goes to bureaucrats and vested interests, not toward educating the kids.

8 – Pass SERIOUS mortgage reform.

9 – Have a review of every government agency. Either shape up, reform or ship out. Is their expense justified or is it better just to take that money and return it to the states or pay the debt.

10 – Reign in the Federal Reserve and stop them from trashing our currency.

11 – Pass FDA reform so our companies can bring new medicines and innovations to market cheaper.

12 – Pass wage & hour reform to make exceptions for apprenticeships. The minimum wage is high enough now that apprenticeship jobs for young people to teach them trade skills have almost all disappeared. Young people who do not wish to go to college need skills so they can have good jobs later. The lack of skilled labor has brought in illegal aliens to do those jobs, especially in construction.

13 – Review laws that have little benefit but kill jobs (the light bulb law comes to mind)

14 – Create enterprise zones with incentives to attract wealth.

15 – 80%+ of college graduates are not finding good jobs, student loan repayment penalties should be suspended till the economy recovers.

16 – Deal with ObamaCare problems.

17 – Re-enable the Clinton/Gingrich/Kasich Welfare Reform law that was reversed with the stimulus package.

18 – Allow states to make their own low cost health care programs like the brilliant Indiana HIP program (and many other reforms).


Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Post 2010, Republican Brand | 1 Comment »

NJ Governor Christie: The people didn’t send me here to go to charm school, they sent me here to straighten this government out

Posted by iusbvision on September 10, 2010

“Decisions have to be made, they cannot be delayed.”

A-men.

This video is 20 minutes long. Trust me you want to watch the whole thing as it just gets better as it goes on.

Governor Christie Closes $11 Billion New Jersey Budget Shortfall in 182 Days!

Governor Christie is the new face of the Republican Brand. Candidates this man is setting the example the American people expect you to live up to.

See our Governor Christie coverage HERE.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Republican Brand | 3 Comments »

Upcoming New Alaska Senator Joe Miller: Obama is bad for America

Posted by iusbvision on September 2, 2010

Joe Miller defeated incumbant Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska Primary. Murkowski was wrong on a host of issues and a part of a corrupt political dynasty in Alaska.

Watch Joe Miller in action:

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Palin Truth Squad, Republican Brand | Leave a Comment »

October News Roundup Part III

Posted by iusbvision on October 22, 2009

Russia Says NO to Sanctions Against Iran.

Not a surprise. So now it seems that when Obama gave up missile defense in Eastern Europe [1,2] with the stated goal of helping to get Russia on board he got nothing for it except his pals at GE getting some new contracts in Russia.  Was it worth throwing Eastern Europe under the bus?

Financial Times/NYT:

MOSCOW, Oct 14 (NYT): Denting President Obama’s hopes for a powerful ally in his campaign to press Iran on its nuclear programme, Russia’s foreign minister said Tuesday that threatening Tehran now with harsh new sanctions would be “counterproductive.”

The minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said after meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton here that diplomacy should be given a chance to work, particularly after a meeting in Geneva this month in which the Iranian government said it would allow United Nations inspectors to visit its clandestine nuclear enrichment site near the holy city of Qum.

“At the current stage, all forces should be thrown at supporting the negotiating process,” he said. “Threats, sanctions and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.”

Mr. Lavrov’s resistance was striking given that, just three weeks before, President Dmitri A. Medvedev said that “in some cases, sanctions are inevitable.” American officials had hailed that statement as a sign that Russia was finally coming around to the Obama administration’s view that Iran is best handled with diplomacy backed by a credible threat of sanctions.

It also came after the Obama administration announced that it would retool a European missile defense system fiercely opposed by Russia. That move was thought to have paid dividends for the White House when Mr. Medvedev appeared to throw his support behind Mr. Obama on Iran, though American officials say the Russian president was also likely to have been reacting to the disclosure of the secret nuclear site near Qum.

This will influence China to resist sanctions as well at the UN who also has commercial interests in Iran.

So now it has come to this, if Israel doesn’t stop Iran, no one will. Would Obama order Americans to fire in Israeli forces should they strike? Would American pilots dare to obey such an order? I wouldn’t.

German Ship Caught in Iranian Arms Smuggling

This is not a surprise. The French, Germans, Chinese and Russians were smuggling illegal weapons to Saddam’s Iraq for years and our soldiers found the direct evidence it.  And we wonder why we have to clean up so many messes in Europe’s back yard….

Der Spiegel:

An “embarrassing affair,” is how one German diplomat described it. The official could also have added: potentially damaging to trans-Atlantic relations.

In an operation reported on by SPIEGEL over the weekend, US soldiers entered the freighter Hansa India in the Gulf of Suez at the beginning of October and discovered seven containers full of 7.62 millimeter ammunition suitable for Kalashnikov rifles. An eighth container was full of cartridges suitable for the manufacture of additional rounds. The incident is particularly awkward for Berlin as the Hansa India is registered to the Hamburg-based shipping company Leonhardt & Blumberg.

Investigators suspect that the arms were part of an Iranian shipment bound for either the Syrian army or for Hezbollah, the militant Islamist group. US officials have pointed out that the delivery is in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747, which prohibits arms shipments either into or out of Iran.

According to Leonhardt & Blumberg, the 243-meter-long (297-foot-long) ship has for years been under charter to the state-owned shipping company Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines. Two US warships halted the Hansa India after receiving a tip-off from intelligence services.

Liz Cheney Launches New Think Tank to Lead Opposition to Obama Foreign Policy

While Sarah Palin has become the main voice of GOP opposition to the far left policies of the Democratic leadership, Liz Cheney has taken the leading role in opposing administration foreign policy and national security policy.

I am an admirer of Liz Cheney, she is very smart, informed, tough, and very lovely.  Palin/Cheney dream ticket?

Keep America Safe:

The mission of Keep America Safe is to provide information for concerned Americans about critical national security issues. Keep America Safe seeks to influence public policy by encouraging dialogue between American citizens and their elected representatives in order to produce legislation and executive action that enhances the national security of the United States.

The United States remains a nation at war. We face a growing threat from rogue regimes that seek or have already obtained nuclear weapons. America’s interests are challenged by an authoritarian China, a resurgent Russia, and dictators in our own hemisphere who ally themselves with our adversaries. Amidst the great challenges to America’s security and prosperity, the current administration too often seems uncertain, wishful, irresolute, and unwilling to stand up for America, our allies and our interests.

Since 9/11, the United States Government, through our armed forces and our intelligence and law enforcement professionals, has succeeded in preventing any further attacks on the American homeland. This is a major achievement. By turning away from the policies that have kept us safe, by treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter, giving foreign terrorists the same rights as American citizens, launching investigations of CIA agents, cutting defense spending, breaking faith with our allies and attempting to appease our adversaries, the current administration is weakening the nation, and making it more difficult for us to defend our security and our interests.

Keep America Safe believes the United States can only defeat our adversaries and defend our interests from a position of strength. We know that America has, for 233 years, been an unparalleled force for good in the world, that our fighting forces are the best the world has ever known, and that the world is a safer place when America is trusted by our allies and feared and respected by our enemies. Keep America Safe will make the case for an unapologetic approach to fighting terrorism around the world, for victory in the wars this country fights, for democracy and human rights, and for a strong American military that is needed in the dangerous world in which we live.

Here is their introductory video:  

President’s can multi-task so the complaining about the trips and golf I think was a bit cheesy, but the rest of it is spot on. Obama certainly has reneged ion his word when it comes to Afghanistan.   HERE is Keep America Safe’s youtube channel.

Here is Liz Cheney talking with Sean Hannity. Sean is a little too partisan for my tastes, but Liz is in top form:

By the way the Pew Research Center polled and discovered that most Americans support the use of force to prevent Iran from getting nukes LINK.

Liz Cheney Dismantles far CNN activist/reporter Anderson Cooper:   

Liz Cheney Destroys MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell:

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Republican Brand, Russia | Leave a Comment »

Republicans need to stop baseless attacks on each other and mount substantive attacks on the other side. UPDATE: The “Divisive” canard.

Posted by iusbvision on June 23, 2009

What is the best way for a Republican to become the darling of the Washington press corps? Easy, just start calling other Republicans names and launch vague attacks upon them.

American Thinker has a great piece on this so we are sharing it here with some comments of our own in bold:

There is something about D.C. that saps the will and dulls the intellect of conservatives. Prolonged exposure makes them fretful and risk-averse, even timid with controversial issues. Rather than standing on the fundamental values that define American conservatism such as fiscal restraint, limited government, low taxes and free markets, they sidestep and tap-dance, befuddled by the “bi-partisan” opiates peddled by Socialist Democrats.

Perhaps they are worried about re-election more than the core issues. Their long record of misreading the national temperament, rolling over on leftist initiatives, and pushing the wrong candidates has alienated conservatives of all stripes. They squandered the mandate voters handed them in 2004. Vast numbers have now registered Independent in protest. When you don’t fight back, you lose. Socialist calls for “bipartisanship” are a trick conservatives fall for again and again, a tool they use to undermine us; they do not pretend to follow it. So why do we listen to political traitors like Colin Powell or fence-sitting bureaucrats like Tom Ridge? Why do we give the advice of “big tent” moderates any credence? Because our opponents tell us to, and, like fools, we listen.

Tom Ridge, the former Homeland Security Secretary and a towering intellect compared to its current head, recently criticized Rush Limbaugh on CNN. His comments closely echoed the kumbaya nonsense that convinced John McCain that there was an ethical political high road that would gain him the votes he needed. The Democrat Socialists never bothered to go there, but McCain foolishly did. Ridge said:

“I think for the American public, for the Republican Party to restore itself, not as a regional party, but as a national party, we have to be far less judgmental about disagreements within the party and far more judgmental about our disagreement with our friends on the other side of the aisle,” Ridge said. “I think a lot of our commentators are being shrill.” In response to a question about Limbaugh, “Yes, Rush Limbaugh has an audience of 20 million people. A lot of people listen daily to him and live by every word. But words mean things and how you use words is very important.” He further said, “Well, I think Rush articulates his point of view in ways that offend very many. It’s a matter of language and a matter of how you use words. It does get the base all fired up and he’s got a strong following. But personally, if he would listen to me and I doubt if he would, the notion is express yourselves but let’s respect others opinions and let’s not be divisive.”

[Really Tom, let me ask you, who uses “divisive” language. Al Gore says that pres. Bush “demeaned our democracy”, Democrats have falsely construed mild interrogation techniques as torture, Barack Obama says that our troops air raid villages and kill civilians, John Kerry says that our soldiers torture women and children, Dick Durbin compares our soldiers to Nazi’s, Ted Kennedy says that President Bush “lied us into war” when he said the same thing Bill Clinton and the international community were saying, Obama uses the presidential bully pulpit to attack Indiana Pension Fund bond holders and the list goes on (LINK for video).

The Obama campaign made repeated sexist attacks against Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, including one spokesman who said that she should be at home taking care of her kids (and apparently Obama shouldn’t), Obama surrogates like Slate.com made cruel and outrageous attacks on Sarah Palin and the people in her home town of Wasilla. They even said that she was pro rape, against help for teen mothers and tried to ban books – all lies; yet did the elite media ever once call them out for being “divisive”? When does the elite media and the Democrats cry “divisive” – they do so when they are faced with strong arguments from conservatives that are not so easily or honestly refuted. Republicans like Ridge and Powell need to stop accepting the premises of the elite media and the Democrats (which are now one) and start attacking them. – Editor]

Well how’s that working for you, Tom? In case you have not noticed, we are in a crisis contrived and perpetuated by the very people you wish us to be respectful of, whom you call “our friends on the other side of the aisle.” Not being divisive has bought us a socialist in the presidency and thieves in congress and a ticket on a bullet train to disaster. “Shrill” conservative commentary is a leftist canard, there is no shriller voice than a socialist scorned. So he tells us not to offend the opposition that is working hard on stealing our children’s future and squandering our nation’s treasure. How can conservatives take the Republican Party seriously when such people are running it?

[That is right he said socialist. With the government take over of two car companies, banks and other parts of the financial sector, the government controls 39% of the economy, with a take ovcer a health care that brings it up to 46%. Germany, which everyone acknowledges is socialist controls 47% of their economy (source Dick Morris) – Editor]

Colin Powell’s treachery was very Obama-esque, with high-minded rhetoric and no tangible explanation for the citizens that at one time respected him. Always a political general, he is adept at seeing where the political wind blows, and his loyalties seem to be correspondingly shallow. The Valerie Plame fiasco is proof of that. Powell and his subordinate Richard Armitage let a good man hang out to dry, knowing full well it was Armitage who was responsible. Whether they remained silent from cowardice or had a more malign purpose, the result was the same. Powell is like Obama in that he sounds somber and wise, but when his words are examined without the timbre of his voice and his “style,” they fall flat, all rhetorical flourish without substance. (Senator John Kerry called Powell’s comments endorsing Obama “eloquent.”)

“But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities–and we have to take that into account–as well as his substance–he has both style and substance–he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world–onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.” [Notice Powell did not mention one policy position of Obama in his endorsement? – Editor]

Let me say what most Republicans feel. When Colin Powell came out in support of Barack Obama, he effectively renounced Republicanism. Powell spat in the face of all conservative Americans and all his dissembling on Sunday gab fests does not change that fact. Obama is unmistakably and unabashedly socialist in his policies; he is the embodiment of the radical left and his policies are a disaster for our nation. Powell knows there will be no forgiveness. So when he criticizes “right wing” conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, he is merely appeasing his new masters and weakening the party he has already betrayed.

[But lets add some more substance to this argument, for all intensive purposes Powell makes the case that Republicans should be super sweet, not argumentative, not take Democrats to task and not engage in partisanship (even when Democrats in Congress have made it clear to lock Republicans out of bill negotiations after promising bi-partisanship). John McCain is the poster child of this kind of behavior and Powell endorsed Obama. When do you hear Powell take day to day policy positions, argue them, put out detailed position and policy papers? You don’t. With Powell all you will get is puff rhetoric. Limbaugh takes policy positions, articulates them in detail, puts them on his web site and in the Wall Street Journal. – Editor]

It’s not just Limbaugh. When any conservative figure is perceived as pivotal to the success of the Republican Party, the Socialists go gunning for them, they use every stratagem and deceit they can, they concoct and exaggerate, they ridicule and they lie. Sarah Palin, Ted Stevens, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Tom Delay, Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh are all examples. The smears, slander and character assassination are a tactic they are not shy about using. The press is their ally, repeating every absurd and fallacious talking point, stacking panels with Socialist apologists and shouting down conservative perspectives. Inevitably, they find a Republican quisling, like Powell, to parrot their words, to reinforce them in the minds of the voter, giving them validity, and undermining the values they pretend they support.

It is fashionable in elite Republican circles to turn up your nose when Limbaugh is mentioned, he is so embarrassingly proletarian, so annoyingly common, and he has no Ivy League pedigree. He is “divisive,” he is “offensive,” he is “polarizing;” in short; he is a hell of a lot more effective than the gang in charge that let the opposition define the issues and the debate. Their arrogance fits nicely into the Socialist plan, they just pepper in accusations of racism, drug addiction, and misogyny and presto, you have a national smear campaign. Love him or hate him, Limbaugh is doing something. He is clear and consistent, and despite the criticisms of those who have never listened to him, he articulates what many millions believe and current events reinforce. He is the thin strand of principle holding us together in a leadership vacuum.

All the ever-so-reasonable sounding reprimands, admonishing us to be less “partisan” and to “reach out rather than criticize” and to “tone down the rhetoric” have an underlying purpose, to weaken a party already crippled by a deficit of self-confidence. It is an old Alinsky trick to place conservative perspectives in a negative moral context and hammer away; eventually, the opposition will grow disillusioned, its animating energy diminished. It works. Our tremulous elites are endlessly distracted by focus groups and straw polls, talk show pundits and the ravings of corrupt legislators that couldn’t tell the truth to save their souls. These country club conservatives are convinced that standing on conservative principles will be a failure.

Either you believe in your principles or you do not. If not, you might as well go the way of the wretched Arlen Specter. You fight honorably, but you fight to win, because the alternative is a failed America. There is not much time, 2010 is our last chance. Once the trillions in stimulus fill the Democrat party coffers and cement their cronies into government, the nation is theirs, and just like the title on James Carville’s newest book proclaims, ‘40 More Years, How The Democrats will Rule the Next Generation,’ we will be powerless to stop the destruction of our institutions.

Yes, Carville used the word Rule. Not serve the nation, not govern, not lead, but rule. The word speaks volumes to the underlying belief system and motivations of the Socialist Democrats. This is not paranoia or conspiracy nuttiness, this is real. They fully intend to manipulate, steal, propagandize and deconstruct everything we cherish, everything we hold dear as Americans. If they succeed, the country will be unrecognizable in a few years time. Even the soviet era newspaper holdover PRAVDA is warning of the catastrophe of American Marxism on its pages (and hell is likely freezing over).

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Palin Truth Squad, Republican Brand | Leave a Comment »

Who will be the president’s next straw man?

Posted by iusbvision on March 24, 2009

The reliance on strawman arguments to answer questions is a common practice for this administration.

He said that the Republicans were all about doing nothing on the economy when it came to the stimulus when every Republican in the Senate voted for a republican alternative stimulus plan that according to barack Obama’s own model created twice the jobs as half the price.

The GOP Conferance has figured this out and is having some fun with it.  

GOP Conference:

Even the Washington Post has reported on the President’s use of straw man tactics to scare away criticisms of his policies.  Despite the fact Republicans have repeatedly offered better solutions:

$786 billion so-called stimulus

President’s Straw Man

“There seem to be a lot of folks… who just believe that we should do nothing.” (Washington Post, 2/11/2009)

Republican Better Solution
Republicans offered an alternative that created twice the jobs at half the cost compared to the President’s plan. (republicanleader.house.gov)
 
$410 billion omnibus loaded with wasteful spending

President’s Straw Man
“Opposition is always easy. Saying no to something is easy.” (Washington Post, 3/12/2009)

Republican Better Solution
Republicans called for a resolution that would have checked the growth of government spending and eliminated thousands of wasteful earmarks. (www.gop.gov)
 
A budget proposal that spends, taxes, and borrows too much

President’s Straw Man
“…they’ve [Republican Party] just decided ‘we’re going to be against whatever the other side is for.'” (Louisville Courier-Journal, 3/24/2009)

Republican Better Solution
Republicans call for a budget that protects jobs, lowers taxes, provides universal access to affordable health care, and ends taxpayer bailouts. (www.gop.gov)

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Republican Brand | 1 Comment »